| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20231129152613.6vfz4b675u7wbz25@CAB-WSD-L081021>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 18:26:13 +0300
From: Dmitry Rokosov <ddrokosov@...utedevices.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
CC: <rostedt@...dmis.org>, <mhiramat@...nel.org>, <hannes@...xchg.org>,
<roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
<muchun.song@...ux.dev>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<kernel@...rdevices.ru>, <rockosov@...il.com>,
<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] mm: memcg: introduce new event to trace
shrink_memcg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 06:20:57PM +0300, Dmitry Rokosov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 10:32:50AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 27-11-23 19:16:37, Dmitry Rokosov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 01:50:22PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Mon 27-11-23 14:36:44, Dmitry Rokosov wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 10:33:49AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu 23-11-23 22:39:37, Dmitry Rokosov wrote:
> > > > > > > The shrink_memcg flow plays a crucial role in memcg reclamation.
> > > > > > > Currently, it is not possible to trace this point from non-direct
> > > > > > > reclaim paths. However, direct reclaim has its own tracepoint, so there
> > > > > > > is no issue there. In certain cases, when debugging memcg pressure,
> > > > > > > developers may need to identify all potential requests for memcg
> > > > > > > reclamation including kswapd(). The patchset introduces the tracepoints
> > > > > > > mm_vmscan_memcg_shrink_{begin|end}() to address this problem.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Example of output in the kswapd context (non-direct reclaim):
> > > > > > > kswapd0-39 [001] ..... 240.356378: mm_vmscan_memcg_shrink_begin: order=0 gfp_flags=GFP_KERNEL memcg=16
> > > > > > > kswapd0-39 [001] ..... 240.356396: mm_vmscan_memcg_shrink_end: nr_reclaimed=0 memcg=16
> > > > > > > kswapd0-39 [001] ..... 240.356420: mm_vmscan_memcg_shrink_begin: order=0 gfp_flags=GFP_KERNEL memcg=16
> > > > > > > kswapd0-39 [001] ..... 240.356454: mm_vmscan_memcg_shrink_end: nr_reclaimed=1 memcg=16
> > > > > > > kswapd0-39 [001] ..... 240.356479: mm_vmscan_memcg_shrink_begin: order=0 gfp_flags=GFP_KERNEL memcg=16
> > > > > > > kswapd0-39 [001] ..... 240.356506: mm_vmscan_memcg_shrink_end: nr_reclaimed=4 memcg=16
> > > > > > > kswapd0-39 [001] ..... 240.356525: mm_vmscan_memcg_shrink_begin: order=0 gfp_flags=GFP_KERNEL memcg=16
> > > > > > > kswapd0-39 [001] ..... 240.356593: mm_vmscan_memcg_shrink_end: nr_reclaimed=11 memcg=16
> > > > > > > kswapd0-39 [001] ..... 240.356614: mm_vmscan_memcg_shrink_begin: order=0 gfp_flags=GFP_KERNEL memcg=16
> > > > > > > kswapd0-39 [001] ..... 240.356738: mm_vmscan_memcg_shrink_end: nr_reclaimed=25 memcg=16
> > > > > > > kswapd0-39 [001] ..... 240.356790: mm_vmscan_memcg_shrink_begin: order=0 gfp_flags=GFP_KERNEL memcg=16
> > > > > > > kswapd0-39 [001] ..... 240.357125: mm_vmscan_memcg_shrink_end: nr_reclaimed=53 memcg=16
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the previous version I have asked why do we need this specific
> > > > > > tracepoint when we already do have trace_mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_{in}active
> > > > > > which already give you a very good insight. That includes the number of
> > > > > > reclaimed pages but also more. I do see that we do not include memcg id
> > > > > > of the reclaimed LRU, but that shouldn't be a big problem to add, no?
> > > > >
> > > > > >From my point of view, memcg reclaim includes two points: LRU shrink and
> > > > > slab shrink, as mentioned in the vmscan.c file.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > static void shrink_node_memcgs(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
> > > > > ...
> > > > > reclaimed = sc->nr_reclaimed;
> > > > > scanned = sc->nr_scanned;
> > > > >
> > > > > shrink_lruvec(lruvec, sc);
> > > > >
> > > > > shrink_slab(sc->gfp_mask, pgdat->node_id, memcg,
> > > > > sc->priority);
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > So, both of these operations are important for understanding whether
> > > > > memcg reclaiming was successful or not, as well as its effectiveness. I
> > > > > believe it would be beneficial to summarize them, which is why I have
> > > > > created new tracepoints.
> > > >
> > > > This sounds like nice to have rather than must. Put it differently. If
> > > > you make existing reclaim trace points memcg aware (print memcg id) then
> > > > what prevents you from making analysis you need?
> > >
> > > You are right, nothing prevents me from making this analysis... but...
> > >
> > > This approach does have some disadvantages:
> > > 1) It requires more changes to vmscan. At the very least, the memcg
> > > object should be forwarded to all subfunctions for LRU and SLAB
> > > shrinkers.
> >
> > We should have lruvec or memcg available. lruvec_memcg() could be used
> > to get memcg from the lruvec. It might be more places to add the id but
> > arguably this would improve them to identify where the memory has been
> > scanned/reclaimed from.
> >
>
> Oh, thank you, didn't see this conversion function before...
>
> > > 2) With this approach, we will not have the ability to trace a situation
> > > where the kernel is requesting reclaim for a specific memcg, but due to
> > > limits issues, we are unable to run it.
> >
> > I do not follow. Could you be more specific please?
> >
>
> I'm referring to a situation where kswapd() or another kernel mm code
> requests some reclaim pages from memcg, but memcg rejects it due to
> limits checkers. This occurs in the shrink_node_memcgs() function.
>
> ===
> mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(target_memcg, memcg);
>
> if (mem_cgroup_below_min(target_memcg, memcg)) {
> /*
> * Hard protection.
> * If there is no reclaimable memory, OOM.
> */
> continue;
> } else if (mem_cgroup_below_low(target_memcg, memcg)) {
> /*
> * Soft protection.
> * Respect the protection only as long as
> * there is an unprotected supply
> * of reclaimable memory from other cgroups.
> */
> if (!sc->memcg_low_reclaim) {
> sc->memcg_low_skipped = 1;
> continue;
> }
> memcg_memory_event(memcg, MEMCG_LOW);
> }
> ===
>
> With separate shrink begin()/end() tracepoints we can detect such
> problem.
>
>
> > > 3) LRU and SLAB shrinkers are too common places to handle memcg-related
> > > tasks. Additionally, memcg can be disabled in the kernel configuration.
> >
> > Right. This could be all hidden in the tracing code. You simply do not
> > print memcg id when the controller is disabled. Or just simply print 0.
> > I do not really see any major problems with that.
> >
> > I would really prefer to focus on that direction rather than adding
> > another begin/end tracepoint which overalaps with existing begin/end
> > traces and provides much more limited information because I would bet we
> > will have somebody complaining that mere nr_reclaimed is not sufficient.
>
> Okay, I will try to prepare a new patch version with memcg printing from
> lruvec and slab tracepoints.
>
> Then Andrew should drop the previous patchsets, I suppose. Please advise
> on the correct workflow steps here.
Actually, it has already been merged into linux-next... I just checked.
Maybe it would be better to prepare lruvec and slab memcg printing as a
separate patch series?
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?id=0e7f0c52a76cb22c8633f21bff6e48fabff6016e
--
Thank you,
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists